The New START treaty has passed its tipping point. The majority of
living former secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, and
national security advisors are now on record that New START strengthens
U.S. national security. That is 13 out of 24. None has opposed the
treaty. It is time for the Senate to approve this new security
agreement.

Last week, thirty national security luminaries - including Colin
Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel, Bill
Cohen, Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean - enthusiastically gave their bipartisan support for the New START Treaty as a "necessary and appropriate step toward safeguarding our national security."

These leaders emphasized the benefits of the treaty's prudent reductions in nuclear arms
and its tough inspection regime. They made clear that the treaty does
not inhibit America's ability to maintain an effective nuclear arsenal
or deploy missile defense systems.

Over the last eight weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
held hearings on New START with six senior officials from past
administrations. While each statesman gave the Committee a unique
perspective on New START, all of them supported the treaty.

Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger said, "I think it is obligatory for the United States to ratify."

Former
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said, "I think the treaty
should be ratified and it'll make a modest but useful contribution in
this overall process."

Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry said, "I believe that this treaty does advance American security objectives."

Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said, "I support ratification of the treaty."

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "In my view, the agreement is a modest step forward."

Former
Secretary of State James Baker said the treaty "appears to take our
country in a direction that can enhance our national security while at
the same time reducing the number of nuclear warheads on the planet."

This is in addition to the support
from Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
has said that the treaty has the full support of our uniformed military:

"This treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have
been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United
States. I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards."

Getting Lonely on the Far Right

With such overwhelming bipartisan support from America's top
civilian and military officials and former national security leaders,
it has been hard for the determined critics to scrape together experts
beyond the fringe.

Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) - the only U.S. Senator to publicly oppose the treaty - lamented this very situation, saying, "Seventeen witnesses so far, no witnesses in opposition to it." He added, "I don't know who thinks that can be reasonable."

The opposition's problem is not that the Senate is being lead
astray. In committee hearings, supporters of the treaty did not pull
their punches. They noted areas where they wished the treaty had gone
further. The far right is simply having trouble objecting to what is an
extremely reasonable and widely supported treaty with clear benefits
for American national security.

It's down to politics. The only reason to oppose this treaty is
political gamesmanship on the eve of elections--to deny the
administration a victory. This would sacrifice our national security
for narrow, partisan gain.

It is time for a vote.

The Senate should bring the New START treaty to the floor before it
breaks for August recess. As it does, Senators would be wise to heed
the words of Secretary James Baker.

"It is important that nuclear weapons treaties have the
broadest bipartisan support possible so that leaders in Moscow and
other international capitals understand that our country wholeheartedly
supports the treaty."

The Senate supported START I by a vote of 93 to 6 and START II,
87 to 4. New START has proved it is a worthy successor to these Ronald
Reagan and George H. W. Bush agreements. The Senate should approve it
with equally high support.